While everyone focuses on the iPhone next update, a new rumor posits that Apple will already have a new version of Mac OS X available for testing in early form at WWDC, with its actual launch appearing as early as next year's Macworld event.

Information purportedly handed to TUAW would have Apple seeding a rough version of Mac OS X 10.6 to developers attending the conference, with a release to manufacturing in December and a January shipping timeframe.

Similar to Mac OS X 10.1, however, the release would more closely resemble a maintenance release than a complete overhaul. The primary change would be a complete transition to an Intel-only, 64-bit platform that drops PowerPC support, pushing developers to code only for the x86 architecture at the heart of all Macs released from 2006 onwards.

AppleInsider first received word that the Mac maker would shed PowerPC support as early as September, just a month before the release of Leopard.

Expectedly, Apple has refrained from discussing any of its post-Leopard plans to date. The company has nonetheless dropped early signs that it may be preparing for the new release, with reports of a small 10.6 reference surfacing in the latest build of the iPhone's software development kit.

Apple has also alluded to next week's WWDC as a landmark event in "more ways than one," with bridge imagery suggesting two bridges to cross at the San Francisco gathering.

I am not buying it. Security and stability should be addressed with each point update. Plus, i don't see how Apple can market spending $129 for a new OS that only adds security and stability but rules out all 32-bit and PPC versions of the OS.

If 10.6 is introduced next week I would expect that bells and whistles to be shown to entice the audience. I don't see how Applewho best attribute is arguably their marketingwould try to sell a new OS that had no new features to lure us.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

It was expected that Mac OS X 10.6 would drop PowerPC support. No surprise there. Kind of sad though, my iMac G5 will only support two operating systems, 10.4 and 10.5, compared to my PowerBook G4 that supports OS 9 through 10.5. Was hoping the iMac G5 would have supported more versions of OS X. But with the shift to Intel, better they concentrate their efforts on OS X for Intel. Not much different during the shift from 680x0 to PowerPC. 680x0 support was eventually dropped with Mac OS 8.5. So my Centris 650 only supported System 7.1 through Mac OS 8.1.

Hopefully we'll see 64-bit apps like Safari standard from Apple before 10.6 comes out. Those of us with 64-bit Intel systems are losing out on significant performance because most/all Apple apps and even the bundled Darwin command line utilities are still 32-bit. (In contrast to 32-bit Intel X86 platforms, moving from 32-bit to 64-bit for PPC isn't so important because 64-bit PPC code is typically slower).

consolidation is what matters here. I'm not happy my G5 won't be moving forward, but i'm due for a new Mac anyway. Keep efforts with emerging technologies instead of dividing the talent.

Also, i'd suspect that Apple will include some touch features and possibly voice as the platform is now ready and has the power, which could be why non-Intel machines won't be included.

This will get to the punch before M$ also. Apple has been doing touch in a big way, in the real world so they should be ready. Manufacturers will be ready as they are already developing for the iPhone/Touch. This would make sense announcing this along side of iPhone 2.0. It would be cool not to have to reach for the mouse each time, but think of the finger prints

I do hope voice is included as this would enable us to work out of reach of our systems, but i imagine that touch in more important to the creative side, so that will be first and foremost.

I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?

Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof

Hopefully we'll see 64-bit apps like Safari standard from Apple before 10.6 comes out. Those of us with 64-bit Intel systems are losing out on significant performance because most/all Apple apps and even the bundled Darwin command line utilities are still 32-bit.

64-bit doesn't help performance. It helps run apps that need >4Gigs memory. I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.

the binary code means that developers have to develop for both platforms meaning larger programs, and longer development time between releases. if adobe only had to develop for the intel platform, the product should be able to be released faster and the final product should have less code bloat since it's only written for the intel processor which would in turn mean better performance.

the binary code means that developers have to develop for both platforms meaning larger programs, and longer development time between releases. if adobe only had to develop for the intel platform, the product should be able to be released faster and the final product should have less code bloat since it's only written for the intel processor which would in turn mean better performance.

Those cheeky bastards at Apple are getting lazy. First they want to move developers off of carbon and now they want to slash PPC out of the mix.

Well I guess in the end it's ok for us folks that see more Mac purchases on the horizon.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Apple could release a new OS every other month for all I care. Leopard just came out and I'm not hardly interested in a New OS. I'm sticking with Leopard for at least another 2 or 3 years before upgrading to a new OS. Leopard at 10.5.3 is rock solid and I love it.

Right now Apple has to test for four different system types. 32-bit PPC, 64-bit PPC, 32-bitIntel and 64-bit Intel. While the universal binaries have worked out well and the transition was amazingly smooth but dropping the 32-bit and PPC they can focus their OS R&D more speifically and potentially have faster gains with less cost.

That said, we need to look at this from Apple's POV. We need to know what percentage of Macs will be 64-bit Intel-based machines as of the release on 10.6. We would also do well to eliminate any Macs that aren't currently using Leopard as those running Tiger or earlier versions are unlikely to upgrade anyway.

Perhaps we also need to look at this from an IP perspective. Would moving to 64-bit only limit the number of Hacked Macs out there as many are setup using unused 32-bit HW? (It is that way in my case) Could this be the new OS for ONLY for new HW that has an authentication chip on the MoBo, hence the rumour of it just being stability and security? (Just throwing that out there)

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

the binary code means that developers have to develop for both platforms meaning larger programs, and longer development time between releases. if adobe only had to develop for the intel platform, the product should be able to be released faster and the final product should have less code bloat since it's only written for the intel processor which would in turn mean better performance.

Of course, the flaw in that argument is assuming that Adobe would drop support for PPC just because Apple does. I doubt that would be the case. Apple's motivation is to get you to buy new hardware to get the new OS. Adobe's motivation is to get you to upgrade your Photoshop, and that will include a lot of PPC users for some time to come. So by Apple dropping PPC support, it could actually make Adobe's job more difficult by having to support two mutually exclusive Mac operating systems.

And just how much simpler would their OS development be, really? According to Apple, if you use xcode, you just have to check a single box in the compiler to make a universal binary. Aren't all of Apple's apps in xcode? So it should be tivial to support both. Or are you telling me that sometimes Steve exagerates how easy things are with Apple?

Finally, is there really a performance hit with universal binaries? It's not as if your computer has to skip over every other line of code to execute only the Intel bits or only the PPC bits. It would take up less space on your hard drive, but isn't that about it?

We would also do well to eliminate any Macs that aren't currently using Leopard as those running Tiger or earlier versions are unlikely to upgrade anyway.

I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.

So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...

I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.

So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...

But if the baby is microscopic should Apple care? The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. I say let them keep running their legacy apps but do so with an OS suited for their legacy app.

I'd also like to see Apple reduce the amount of testing they have to do. For users who are staying current we stand to see faster delivery, better performance and stability and more features implemented.

It's time to get most development on Cocoa and push 64-bit and threading. PPC is dead weight.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.

So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...

You have a point, but it's my point too. If the number of Intel users by x date in 2009 will be high enough then Apple may give a big FU to those stuck on older systems for some archaic app. If the number isn't high enough then Apple will support it as it's a financial lose, as you say, if they didn't.

I guess the question is whether it is Apple's financial favour to drop PPC and 32-bit support or not.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

OS X 10.6 will probably incorporate touch in a BIG way. I just don't see that right now until Apple can also get the hardware ready.

Yep, with microsoft already showing off windows 7 and its [lame attempt to copy apple's] multi touch interface, apple will most likely release their next OS with multi-touch capability, alongside a whole collection of new hardware.

Flying is not inherently dangerous, but terribly unforgiving of any mistakes, neglect or inattention to detail.

Yep, with microsoft already showing off windows 7 and its [lame attempt to copy apple's] multi touch interface, apple will most likely release their next OS with multi-touch capability, alongside a whole collection of new hardware.

Apple has already incorporated Touch in some of their Macs in a smart way. They are using the touchpad to allow for more advanced and complex maneuvers. And it doesn't require an awkward touching of the monitor to do it.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Even as a PPC user I say bring it on. Part of what has kept the Mac OS lean throughout all these years is the cutting of legacy baggage. So I'll have to buy a new Mac in order to upgrade... I've gotten 6 years out of it and I'm content. Though I already can't run Leopard, my computer isn't obsolete! The thing making it obsolete is it's Garage Band performance!!!

Edits one track at a time... I have to lock all others... snooooooooze.

Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.

It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.

Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.

It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.

Pete

Hell with Apple's involvement in LLVM and Clang supporting other processors becomes even easier. In fact I read that Xcode 3.1 with iPhone support has LLVM. I'm not sure if LLVM is used to deliver iPhone optimized code or not but a couple more OS X generations and Apple should be able to target popular hardware with vastly improved development tools.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.

It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.

Don't be so smug, Mr I.! More likely the problem is that some software companies stopped Mac support at OS9.

For instance, I still have to fire up 'Classic' to use CambridgeSoft's ChemOffice - the standard and easily the best professional chemistry drawing software. Chemdraw is OSX but the powerful Chem-3D component of ChemOffice is still only on OS9. I've complained several times, as I'm sure have hundreds or thousands of other users: ChemDrw was originally developed for the Mac and many (maybe most) research chemists use the Mac (and won't have any truck with butt-ugly obscenities like the Microstinky Windblows version of ChemOffice).

Don't be so smug, Mr I.! More likely the problem is that some software companies stopped Mac support at OS9.

For instance, I still have to fire up 'Classic' to use CambridgeSoft's ChemOffice - the standard and easily the best professional chemistry drawing software. Chemdraw is OSX but the powerful Chem-3D component of ChemOffice is still only on OS9. I've complained several times, as I'm sure have hundreds or thousands of other users: ChemDrw was originally developed for the Mac and many (maybe most) research chemists use the Mac (and won't have any truck with butt-ugly obscenities like the Microstinky Windblows version of ChemOffice).

With all the advances in OS X, especially with things like Core Animation that they would have updated their software. IT can't be an issue with users as there are many more users than before and even a higher percentage of users than the pre-OS X days despite the a growing number of PC users.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?

Yeah, dropping PowerPC seems a bit early!
And the rumour says it won't be a major update, focussing instead on the 64bit Intel platform. Hardly an enticing reason to upgrade unless it's a significant performance jump for 64 bit intel machines.

So, as you say - could there be a compelling reason to upgrade?
Could it be that 10.6 is taking Macs in a new direction, in some way?
If it was, only being available for new Macs would make sense...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiMiC

Also, i'd suspect that Apple will include some touch features and possibly voice as the platform is now ready and has the power, which could be why non-Intel machines won't be included. <snip>

I do hope voice is included as this would enable us to work out of reach of our systems, but i imagine that touch in more important to the creative side, so that will be first and foremost.

If Apple was to make a new touch-based OS, then it'd only work on New Macs. Naturally enough, there's no reason to support PowerPC or 32-bit. In fact, no reason to support computers released even in the last 6 months, just computers with multi-touch-based screens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by solipsism

I am not buying it. Security and stability should be addressed with each point update. Plus, i don't see how Apple can market spending $129 for a new OS that only adds security and stability but rules out all 32-bit and PPC versions of the OS.

If 10.6 is introduced next week I would expect that bells and whistles to be shown to entice the audience. I don't see how Apple—who best attribute is arguably their marketing—would try to sell a new OS that had no new features to lure us.

Yeah. AI compare it to 10.1.... which was a FREE release.
If free then sure people will upgrade... and 10.5 will continue to be fixed and refined too.

If it costs - then once again what new features could lure us in.
* touch screens
* voice control??
* system self-reinstall (I mean - it deletes itself, reinstalls OSX from online, installs your apps from online, and restores documents/music/movies from your TImeMachine, Online backup, Previous Purchases, and iPod syncs
* seamless Xgrid - speed up every computer on your network by sharing processing power.
* user mobility - log in to any Mac and get your own desktop (including documents/apps/music/etc)

And a final thought - is it possible that Apple is toying with the idea of a subscription based OSX combined with .Mac? $10/mth for the OS plus unlimited .Mac usage for online backups and user mobility.

If they drop x32 Intel support, I would be pissed since I own a CD MBP. But I don't see that happening just yet.

If they release 10.6 and it is not ground breaking stuff, so what? Buy it or not. But they cannot afford to not release an OS at or around the same time as W7 at a time when they are starting to get traction selling actual computers. It just isn't something they can afford to do from a perception point of view (right or wrong).